In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has Released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College ... Released today, the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.

This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as President article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president.. Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualification to serve as president.

Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. Attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter...

LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS, THE MEDIA WON'T!

Subject: RE: Issue of Passport?

While I've little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi?

So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?

And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi, what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?

The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one.

Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20? A: Yes, by his own admission.

Q: What passport did he travel under?

A: There are only three possibilities. 1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport, 2) He traveled with a British passport, or 3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.

Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?

A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's "no travel" list in 1981.

Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport. If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a "natural born" American citizen between 1981 and 2008.

Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.

If you Don't care that Your President is not a natural born Citizen and in Violation of the Constitution, then Delete this, and then lower your American Flag to half-staff, because the U.S. Constitution is already on life-support, and won't survive much longer.

If you do care then Forward this to as many patriotic Americans as you can.

Exactly. The only one who might have shed light on the fraud in the White House was Lt. Quarles Harris Jr. He was shot in the head in his driver’s seat. If we want Obama gone, we’re going to need to expose Benghazi or Fast And Furious. All we have to prove is that he lied, then we can at least move for impeachment.

There is an Occidental World College in the small town of Las Vegas, New Mexico. That college was Armand Hammer World College, the same Armand Hammer associated with Occidental Petroleum and I believe a one-time-employer of the father of Al Gore, as well as, one of the major polluters of Love Canal area in Buffalo, New York. Some have said Armand Hammer's father was the “father” of the American Communist Party.

While release of his Occidental transcript proving he was there as a foreign student could actually happen any day, the following supposed “current” events mark this as the hoax:

“...the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama’s first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama’s legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey .”

I don’t know...supposedly Michael Cormier didn’t work on Brietbart’s autopsy.

I’ve always wondered about the guys in Chicago who zero was reported to have been err..intimate with before zero went for the big time. The stories about the down low club made some sense to me and explain Michelle and Reggie. But then why is Larry Sinclair still out and about...maybe because he blabbed before they could shut him up and now it’s too late to bother?

"So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?"

These aren't irrelevant questions Dale Reed, but few realized the extent to which Obama was likely a creation of our own government, a creation whose documents have and would continue to be protected by professionals, such as former CIA Deputy Director, and now likely Director, John Brennan, the federal court system, and apparently, enough justices of the Supreme Court to block a hearing.

Obama’s patron, beginning at lease with his move to Occidental, has leaked out thanks to a few who weren't in on the scam, such as Attorney to Malcolm X, Louis Farrakhan, The Muslim BrotherHood, and Charles Rangel, along with having flown in a black WWII squadron in the US Army Air Corp, and having been Manhattan Borough President for a decade or so, Percy Sutton. Sutton let the cat out by revealing that Obama’s Patron as of 1985 was Prince Whalid bin-Talal. Obama’s comrades quickly pronounced Percy senile, and the press quashed his statement, which can still be found on YouTube. The politburo probably realized that scrubbing the Sutton interview would attract attention to it. Find it on YouTube and decide. The politburo announced that “a Sutton family attorney declared Percy Sutton incompetent.” The Sutton family said they had never heard of the attorney, who didn't even know Percy's correct age, and that Percy was smart and lucid till the day he died. He told the truth that the media and the left were doing an excellent job of ignoring.

When Frank Mieli located a 1979 Chicago Trib article (cited by Jack Cashill) by Vernon Jarrett, Valerie's father-in-law, with bin-Talal’s legal representative, known in the 60s as Don Warden, and as Khalid al_Mansour after he went to work for the Saudi Family as a Wahhabi recruiter and lawyer, the connections became more clear. Vernon worked with Frank Marshall Davis for twenty years before Frank scurried off to Hawaii in the late 40s. Both were open communists, working at times for the same communist papers in Chicago. Vernon certainly knew Barry in 1979, when Warden/Mansour was already helping - with bin-Talal’s money. (The article described Mansour's project to spend twenty millions of Saudi money educating minorities, mostly black and Hispanic. Mansour was later quietly funding Maddrassas throughout the world, and has been doing so for almost forty years)

It was Mansour who managed the funding of Barry's brief appearance in Columbia's records, even if no photographic evidence has appeared, and no student at Columbia ever saw him there. It was Mansour who contacted Sutton to help get Barry into Harvard. It was bin-Talal who donated twenty million dollars to Harvard in 1986, ten million more than he offered Rudy Giuliani to apologize for his brotherhood's destruction of the World Trade Centers and Pentagon and the lives of three thousand or so Americans.

Obama’s patron, bin-Talal, is the major funding source for the Muslim Brotherhood, the employers of Hillary's aide, Huma Abiden's parents. He is the largest external stock holder of News Corp - Fox and the WSJ - a very large Citibank, Oracle, Cisco, Apple, Siemen’s, and GE investor. Whether you consider this about money or Islam, they are Obama’s foundation, and tied inextricably to oil. That is why Keystone is delayed and the EPA has orders to constrain any development leading toward energy independence. The Saudis need us dependent for their survival. Saddam would have taken them. Iran probably could, and would were it not for our our help, or Israel's. That is why Obama has helped insert the Muslim Brotherhood into every country in North Africa that had managed to surpress them, with our help and Israel's. Obama represents the Muslim Brotherhood.

Obama is not natural born, and every US Senator knows it. They all signed the nonsensical Senate Resolution 511, April 2008, sponsored by Leahy and McCaskill (Obama's Campaign Committee Chair), after the Obama/McCaskill law, SB 2678, failed to pass in February 2008. Both bills supported by the Democrat Senate Judiciary Committee, were to proclaim John McCain eligible to run, after Democrats had spent eight years proving he wasn't. They were correct, but with McCain running no one could question Obama, since neither was eligible. Was McCain part of the plot? He'll never admit it, but it is impossible that he didn't thoroughly understand the issue.

A natural born citizen is born on our soil to parents who were its citizens. Terms aren't defined in the Constitution. Our framers knew that word's meanings change in time, and the Constitution was based upon eternal law, natural law. So they specified, Madison and John Marshall, and James Wilson and others, that definitions come from the common language and law familiar to our framers. That is why there are no definitions in the Constitution. If you read carefully you will find one qualification of a term, "treason", but one unique to our new nation based upon laws and not a monarch.

Was John McCain, a former prisoner of war, really not eligible? That was the gist of the Obama/McCaakill law, SB 2678, the Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. It failed to pass in 2008. McCain was the subject. Were he natural born the law was moot. It wasn't, and the bill failed. I believe there should be an amendment, but don't believe Obama or McCaskill really wanted to enable political opponents from military families. The military is generally conservative. The caution shown by our framers was warranted, particularly with as much as half our new nation wishing were were still a British Colony. Our framers “grandfathered” the early presidents, insuring that they had fought for independence with the 14 year residency requirement, but insisted that our presidents, uniquely, among our leaders, be born to those who fought for the revolution - born “to parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty”, in the words of Congressman John Bingham, the author of the 14th Amendment, our naturalization amendment.

Obama is not president because he was born a British Subject. Neither Obama nor the apparently overwhelming powers presumed to have voted for him (our voting system is completely unverifiable) respect the Constitution, and have said so. They would not care if he were born in Mecca. They nor many voters have not cared enough to insist on knowing his real name, on seeing his school records, verifying how old he is, or, as this thread points out, where he was born. It is to whom he was born that is more important. We knew who McCain's parents were, even though he wasn't born on our soil. That was the sentiment driving SR 511, and one with which I agree, but a resolution is not law. That, in my opinion, is an oversight, addressable, if we believe the Constitution still has some legal authority, only by the Supreme Court, or amendment. John Conyers made two attempts to amend the Constitution between 2003 and 2007, both of which would have legitimized Barry, but neither attempt, like at least twenty four others, left the Congress for ratification by the states. The Supreme Court, as Clarence Thomas commented to Senator Menendez, were avoiding the issue. Remember, Barry was born a British Subject, a natural born British subject, and, unlike naturalized Brits, could have been a Member of Parliament (our nation is much more liberal about who can be in Congress). Are any surprised that we, who don't know our Constitution, are becoming more subjects to the supreme authority of our monarch and less sovereign citizens? Find the wonderful "Dissertaion on Citizenship..." by our first Congressional Historian, Dr. David Ramsay for the most eloquent discription of how subjects and citizens differ. Here is just a taste:

Subjects look up to a master, but citizens are so far equal, that none have hereditary rights superior to others. Each citizen of a free state contains, within himself, by nature and the constitution, as much of the common sovereignty as another. In the eye of reason and philosophy, the political condition of citizens is more exalted than that of noblemen. Dukes and Earls are the creatures of kings, and may be made by them at pleasure: but citizens possess in their own right original sovereignty.

I think the best outcome has passed us by and all we can work towards now is when this fraud is exposed we go after the media with it. We use it to highlight how willingly complicit the media has been in this situation and really hit even harder on the point that journalists are scum and work tirelessly to put knock the journolisters on their azzes to where they are closer to having the 0% credibility they deserve. That’s the best outcome I see at this point.

...since you couldnt use a US passport to go direct since it was illegal.

Are you REALLY that ignorant or uninformed? It was NOT illegal to travel to Pakistan in 1981 - that is just total crap, dummass repetition of crap put out by some other dummass. You need to get a clue. Learn to read, and listen to people who actually KNOW what they are talking about.

48
posted on 02/06/2013 6:38:27 AM PST
by John Valentine
(Deep in the Heart of Texas)

At least some of this e-mail is true, and could not have been debunked in 2009-

Yes, it was debunked the very first year this email started to circulate: 2009. It keeps on coming back like the undead.

"At least some of this e-mail is true.." Maybe, but so what, the core of the claim is false. Occidental has NEVER released these transcripts. That's a flat lie. It was a lie in 2009, and it's still a lie. As much as anyone, and more than most, I'd like to see those transcripts. But you know what - I can't, and neither can you - and why? because they have never been released.

As for the claim that Obama could not legally have traveled to Pakistan in 1981 - that's another out and out lie. I know, because I did so myself.

50
posted on 02/06/2013 6:48:45 AM PST
by John Valentine
(Deep in the Heart of Texas)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.